michaelknives52:-snipYES!!! Pretty much because a larger portion of the video game community is comprised of males and thats the target demographic and the majority of games are created by male developers. Yes sexism still exists. Call of duty would look pretty silly with females running around shooting gus with double D sized breasts... that only makes sense in fighting games like dead or alive or mortal kombat. Perhap you can create a game that is comprised of females with normal sized chests... and watch you company burn to ashs and fail

Ummm... okay, this might seem weird to someone, but is anybody else actually sick of seeing large breasts on female characters? Cause im literally bored with the image of large breast now...

As a person who finds smaller breasts attractive, yes I am. Both from a "quit pandering and objectifying" standpoint and a purely aesthetic standpoint.

I think people are overlooking another issue here. Sure, there is laziness, and people might try and make some kind of "boy's club" arguement, and then voice suspicians of the sexual preferances of the development team, however there is a big one:

Fear of socio-political backlash.

Back when City Of Heroes launched City Of Villains and it's "Mastermind" class, there were questions about why there were no female minions. The reason for this as I remember it was started as being the "potential for abuse".

Look at all the videos people make on the internet, all kinds of crude garbage. You start throwing female models out there and inevitably your going to see all kinds of misogynistic stuff being produced, especially when there is a lot of potential to put guns between a girl's legs, or walk around with your pets in tow and bake them in fire, or make a character who sits around "pimping his hoes" to get attention. I'm sure if you think you can come up with things you've already seen along these lines.

I think the question comes down to a game developer looking at their game, and weighing the pros and cons, what can be done with their engine, and the odds of someone coming after them with accusations of creating a misogyny simulator. Also some developers have more guts than others.

The point I'm making here is that this kind of thing apparently fits into the thinking of some game developers. While people will say it's inexcusable for games to NOT have a female character option, due to all of the ones that do, I think they overlook some of the reasons why people might not want to do it.

Speaking entirely for myself, Brink is an over the top, testosterone laden shooter. It's intentionally catering the the absolutly lowest human denominator to begin with. The exact kind of people who would try and lure a female model onto the top of a pointy building or whatever in exactly the right position for it to be lewd, take pictures of it, blow it to pieces with the most gory weapons possible, and post it on Youtube with their commentary. All games are going to see some of this stuff, but Brink by it's very nature might generate more of this given the game's style, and the player base being targeted. You might not agree, but we might very well be looking at a design team acting out of a combination of responsibility and fear of the repercussions. The fact that other game developers have taken risks with similar games and gotten away with it, does not nessicarly mean that other developers want to roll those dice.

I'd also point out that while I don't play it (so am hardly an expert) "Team Fortress 2" is a similar kind of game, which is also targeting a similar demographic. I don't believe ANY of the characters in that game are female either, despite some theories I've heard about The Pyro (who is too androgynous to tell... they might have answered that in the comics, I don't follow it as I said, but again it probably wound't bait the same kind of "satisfaction" given how the model looks). I honestly haven't heard many criticisms of Valve for what is basically the same practice, though as I said, I'm hardly an expert on TF2. With some of the TF2 videos though, I'd imagine if there was a resident hottie "crude" wouldn't even describe the usage the model would be put through by the core audience of that game given what I've already seen.

I know it's not "polite" to talk about core user bases in a negative way, and my intention is not to flame in this case, but to explain thinking. I am well aware of the fact that arguements can be made against everything I said, but my point isn't to say that this is an entirely right and proper thing to do, just that I think it figures into a lot of game generes being dominated by male characters. Also understand that it's not so much about what the players are going to do, but about the attention it generates. If you have 10,000 videos showing up on Youtube of women being molested and killed in various ways by laughing players giving commentary that's going to warrent complaints, not to mention a lot of people deciding they don't want themselves or their kids associated with this, even if the people doing it represent a small portion of the user base... and yes I say "kids", right or wrong, despite the "M" label, game developers very much DO want the youth demographic playing those games as a general rule. The "Dead Space 2" advertising campaign more or less makes that point. I however believe (as an unrelated point) that it's the job of parents to actually control access to the games by minors, not the goverment's. However the more outrageous people are with your game, the more likely that's going to get mum and daddums to actually not buy the game for Junior and that means lost sales.

If you've ever played MGO, you'll know that it was originally released with only male character models, and then the first expansion introduced female character models. I actually kind of like this idea, because the amount of people using the vanilla game and the amount of people using the expansions and choosing to create a female character was unbalanced, but this to me seemed about right for a game based in the present (or twenty minutes in to the future, as is probably more appropriate) due to the way we use the military in real life.

I could see them being added in an expansion pack (be it a full one or an expansion exclusively for customisation, as I reckon could easily happen on a game that sells itself with that as one of its main points).

I am actually happy that there were no females in brink. The half of the players in the game would be just bimbos in bikinis and then there would be THAT GUY who tries to hit on them eventhough even an idiot knows that 90% of female characters in game are just horny 12 year olds.

lesterley:So the idea of making a game with all FEMALE characters is completely incomprehensible?

What I would pay... Okay, so am I the only male that would find a game that showed an awesome FPS that contained only women of all shapes, sizes, clothing, and ethnicity... hot? I know it's pretty damn sexist, but damn...the possibilities. And "boys" only want to play games that only have sweaty muscle men running around? The irony of all this is classic.

Who cares 90% of female characters are played by male with the desire to trick someone else into thinking their female. Rainbow Six Vegas is the only shooter I know of that gives you this option anyway so why pick on Brink. To which you respond it's highly customizable to which I counter so why not pick one gender and focus on it? I haven't even met any women playing Brink yet anyway. Save yourself the time and don't quote this and explain to me that you're a female that plays Brink because you would be one to the several hundred men.

pokepuke:While it may be an interesting option, it often isn't a realistic one, either.

This^. How often do you see women on the frontline of a war?

But we're talking about a game, and making a game that deliberately alienates half of your potential audience (in fact, half of the people on the planet) is really stupid.

A) They aren't deliberately alienating people. It would be very expensive to add another 3 sets of character models, much more work than just adding a few outfits.

B) It isn't "half their potential audience." While I do not think women are inferior at playing these games, women are generally far less interested in playing games that revolve around killing people*. Men are not better at playing these games, but we are far more interested in playing them.

*EDIT: Yes, I know Brink is an objective based shooter rather than a deathmatch game.

I kind of get why people are annoyed, but I fail to see why they are picking on Brink specifically.

Well, if you get a game set in a war zone or with a resistence force in a country where women are second class, then yeah of course it's understandable.

But if it's set in a civilization, on that civilization's soil, and is in fact a civil war (with a civilization supposedly set in the future), there should be women. Though there should also be women in COD and such (if set in present day) since they are in the US military. Don't know if they are or aren't in those games. Just saying that's just as ridiculous, if not more so since, you know, the US military actually exists.

Personally I think the game was not just rushed, but the art department didn't know how to make women. Seriously. Look at those friggin monstrosities in Brink. Like it or hate it, that's an aesthetic choice that would look even goofier on female characters.

And you take that game and you make humans almost going extinct, with only one way to ensure a next generation. Meaning every dead female is not just a her life gone but any child she can bare. Come on Escapist is it really that hard to figure out that Women are more valuable then men?

Also in CoD you are mostly Special FOrces which is only open to men in the U.S.

But we're talking about a game, and making a game that deliberately alienates half of your potential audience (in fact, half of the people on the planet) is really stupid.

A) They aren't deliberately alienating people. It would be very expensive to add another 3 sets of character models, much more work than just adding a few outfits.

B) It isn't "half their potential audience." While I do not think women are inferior at playing these games, women are generally far less interested in playing games that revolve around killing people*. Men are not better at playing these games, but we are far more interested in playing them.

*EDIT: Yes, I know Brink is an objective based shooter rather than a deathmatch game.

a) The team made a conscious decision not to include female characters in the game; that's deliberate. I'm not suggesting there aren't reasons for this other than 'we hate women'; I'm saying that the reasons aren't good enough.

b) I said 'potential audience' for a reason. The current audience is mostly men. It's just possible that a big part of the reason for that is that games are only ever aimed at men (well, boys).

Modern game design means that we pretty much only get to play as a men, fighting against men doing manly things with other men.

Do you really think that has nothing to do with the relatively small number of female gamers (in this genre)? It's not that women don't want to play this game; they're being excluded from it. They're being told "we don't want your sort here - and you wouldn't like it anyway".

(and as for 'women don't like killing people in games' - have you ever watched a woman play a game? They're brutal, sadistic monsters. It's just that many of them only get to act out their murderous urges on Sims because action games are 'games for men'...)

But we're talking about a game, and making a game that deliberately alienates half of your potential audience (in fact, half of the people on the planet) is really stupid.

A) They aren't deliberately alienating people. It would be very expensive to add another 3 sets of character models, much more work than just adding a few outfits.

B) It isn't "half their potential audience." While I do not think women are inferior at playing these games, women are generally far less interested in playing games that revolve around killing people*. Men are not better at playing these games, but we are far more interested in playing them.

*EDIT: Yes, I know Brink is an objective based shooter rather than a deathmatch game.

a) The team made a conscious decision not to include female characters in the game; that's deliberate. I'm not suggesting there aren't reasons for this other than 'we hate women'; I'm saying that the reasons aren't good enough.

b) I said 'potential audience' for a reason. The current audience is mostly men. It's just possible that a big part of the reason for that is that games are only ever aimed at men (well, boys).

Modern game design means that we pretty much only get to play as a men, fighting against men doing manly things with other men.

As for those reasons not being good enough- when a game costs tens of millions of dollars to produce, and getting investors is difficult enough in this recession, and games that take a long time to finish get canceled, cost and production time are actually very good reasons. This is Vegas and The Agency got canceled, even though a lot of money had been sunk into them, just because they took a long time to finish. Increasing the work load and the amount of time that goes into a release increases the chance it will be canceled. It is a serious issue, and a valid reason.

As for potential audience- The flaw in your logic is that the developers wanted to make a game where men do manly things. The inherent design they wanted to create would have inherently alienated women by your logic. Your essentially arguing that they could have had more female audience members by inserting female character options into a game where manly men do manly things.

Brink is a game designed by men, for men. Adding female character options wouldn't change it's inherent nature.

Shamus, you also forgot to mention the complete overhaul of skeleton animation work it takes to make them look female. Males and females do not walk the same or move the same since skeletal structure is different, hence a completely new skeletal model needs to be made for a female character. You can't just slap on boobs and booty to a male skeleton frame and expect it to look credible.

So why is Brink getting so much shit for this? It isn't like there are female characters in other games. All your generic war/space shooters are all men. Even before they announced there were "102 Quadrillion Unique Characters" in Brink, people were already giving in shit for no females. I don't get it...

Shamus, you also forgot to mention the complete overhaul of skeleton animation work it takes to make them look female. Males and females do not walk the same or move the same since skeletal structure is different, hence a completely new skeletal model needs to be made for a female character. You can't just slap on boobs and booty to a male skeleton frame and expect it to look credible.

Worked for Mount&Blade.

And everymoddedfemale model for TF2. Granted, it doesn't always work, but it would be the least of the issues when it comes to adding female characters.

Assassin Xaero:So why is Brink getting so much shit for this? It isn't like there are female characters in other games. All your generic war/space shooters are all men. Even before they announced there were "102 Quadrillion Unique Characters" in Brink, people were already giving in shit for no females. I don't get it...

Because, as has been explained, you specifically can customize your character to such a ridiculous extent. This is definitely not a standard move for shooters, and people are simply surprised that a game featuring customization as its main selling point would leave out fully half of all possible options. Generally the first (and sometimes only) step in customization is to choose your gender, which is why it's odd that that's not an option.

RelexCryo:As for those reasons not being good enough- when a game costs tens of millions of dollars to produce, and getting investors is difficult enough in this recession, and games that take a long time to finish get canceled, cost and production time are actually very good reasons.

[snip]

Increasing the work load and the amount of time that goes into a release increases the chance it will be canceled. It is a serious issue, and a valid reason.

Only if you take the approach that female models, characters NPCs etc. are 'extra' things that have to be added to a game - rather than things that should be included in a game from the start.

Multiplayer is an example of something that was previously regarded as an optional extra, and is now pretty much de rigeur - it still requires development time, resources and money; but it gets budgeted for in nearly all games nowadays.

I think including female character designs (and - god forbid - actual female characters) is something that could and should easily fall under the same umbrella.

As for potential audience- The flaw in your logic is that the developers wanted to make a game where men do manly things. The inherent design they wanted to create would have inherently alienated women by your logic. Your essentially arguing that they could have had more female audience members by inserting female character options into a game where manly men do manly things.

Brink is a game designed by men, for men. Adding female character options wouldn't change it's inherent nature.

Yes, I am arguing that adding female character options changes it into an 'action game designed by men, for anyone' (anyone who likes action games, that is). It changes it from 'men doing manly things to men' into 'people doing cool things and killing other people'.

It's probably not going to appeal to all, or possibly even most female gamers - but if a game can grab even a small percentage of the female gamer demographic (when previously it's getting almost none of them), then that's a potential shitload of money which the developer isn't getting - which could also make it a good business decision.

If those female gamers are being put off by being told that these sort of games aren't for them by developers (and gamers) - and having no female characters is one way we tell them this (but not the only one), then we shouldn't be surprised that they aren't playing them. If our games were a bit more inclusive, if the community was a bit more inclusive, then it might feel a bit less like a boys' club around here...

RelexCryo:As for those reasons not being good enough- when a game costs tens of millions of dollars to produce, and getting investors is difficult enough in this recession, and games that take a long time to finish get canceled, cost and production time are actually very good reasons.

[snip]

Increasing the work load and the amount of time that goes into a release increases the chance it will be canceled. It is a serious issue, and a valid reason.

Only if you take the approach that female models, characters NPCs etc. are 'extra' things that have to be added to a game - rather than things that should be included in a game from the start.

Core features often get cut due to budget constraints. Whether or not you see something as absolutely essential has no bearing whatsoever on whether or not there is enough money to do it. No amount of percieving female character designs as absolutely necessary will generate enough money to produce them. Features that are percieved as absolutely necessary often get cut in game design, simply because there is not enough resources to produce them.

Multiplayer is an example of something that was previously regarded as an optional extra, and is now pretty much de rigeur - it still requires development time, resources and money; but it gets budgeted for in nearly all games nowadays.

I think including female character designs (and - god forbid - actual female characters) is something that could and should easily fall under the same umbrella.

As for potential audience- The flaw in your logic is that the developers wanted to make a game where men do manly things. The inherent design they wanted to create would have inherently alienated women by your logic. Your essentially arguing that they could have had more female audience members by inserting female character options into a game where manly men do manly things.

Brink is a game designed by men, for men. Adding female character options wouldn't change it's inherent nature.

Yes, I am arguing that adding female character options changes it into an 'action game designed by men, for anyone' (anyone who likes action games, that is). It changes it from 'men doing manly things to men' into 'people doing cool things and killing other people'.

It's probably not going to appeal to all, or possibly even most female gamers - but if a game can grab even a small percentage of the female gamer demographic (when previously it's getting almost none of them), then that's a potential shitload of money which the developer isn't getting - which could also make it a good business decision.

If those female gamers are being put off by being told that these sort of games aren't for them by developers (and gamers) - and having no female characters is one way we tell them this (but not the only one), then we shouldn't be surprised that they aren't playing them. If our games were a bit more inclusive, if the community was a bit more inclusive, then it might feel a bit less like a boys' club around here...

(A club with a big 'No Girls Allowed' sign on the door)

You are arguing that this game(not the industry, just this game) should try to be inclusive. What is the basis for your reasoning? Are you implying that designing games for men is inherently wrong? And if so, do you believe that writing books, designing t.v. shows, or videogames for women is inherently wrong?

As many, many people have pointed out (yet still some don't seem to listen), a game that sells itself on it's 'impressive customisation' yet fails to deliver the most basic of options, gender, is exactly that: a MASSIVE FAIL.

It's not necessarily a game-ruining mistake (yet for some it might be), but it certainly is a Peter Molyneux-sized cock-up.

[EDIT]

Also: the argument that girls don't want to play the game because they won't enjoy it as much as guys do, therefore we should not cater for them is a self-fulfilling prophecy. We need to break the mold a little, people. If games want to become a true mass-medium they need to appeal to more than 53.5% of the population.

Effectively declaring that said people are not worth the development effort required to cater to them pretty much counts as deliberately alienating them... especially when you're trumpeting your deep player customization. When said people are a third of your potential market, not to go after their money is poor business.

Effectively declaring that said people are not worth the development effort required to cater to them pretty much counts as deliberately alienating them... especially when you're trumpeting your deep player customization. When said people are a third of your potential market, not to go after their money is poor business.

A third of the potential market? What is your basis for that declaration? Could you site sources please?

Effectively declaring that said people are not worth the development effort required to cater to them pretty much counts as deliberately alienating them... especially when you're trumpeting your deep player customization. When said people are a third of your potential market, not to go after their money is poor business.

A third of the potential market? What is your basis for that declaration? Could you site sources please?

Glad you asked. ESA study: 40 percent of US gamers are women. Just for example, from a few years back. (Calling them "a third of the potential market" is probably an understatement.) Also useful: an article on the minds of girl gamers which, despite its patronizing title, raises serious problems for the thesis that "women don't play FPS games." Less wide-ranging but still of interest: Blockdot's 2010 gamer survey showed a marked increase in disinterest among its male users in FPS games. (The detailed survey seems not to be online any more, but stories about it are accessible with a simple "blockdot survey" Google search.)

So, basically, women are an increasingly important part of the video games market generally and very likely a coming force in the FPS market specifically. Therefore deliberately alienating them is incredibly stupid.

Effectively declaring that said people are not worth the development effort required to cater to them pretty much counts as deliberately alienating them... especially when you're trumpeting your deep player customization. When said people are a third of your potential market, not to go after their money is poor business.

A third of the potential market? What is your basis for that declaration? Could you site sources please?

Glad you asked. ESA study: 40 percent of US gamers are women. Just for example, from a few years back. (Calling them "a third of the potential market" is probably an understatement.) Also useful: an article on the minds of girl gamers which, despite its patronizing title, raises serious problems for the thesis that "women don't play FPS games." Less wide-ranging but still of interest: Blockdot's 2010 gamer survey showed a marked increase in disinterest among its male users in FPS games. (The detailed survey seems not to be online any more, but stories about it are accessible with a simple "blockdot survey" Google search.)

So, basically, women are an increasingly important part of the video games market generally and very likely a coming force in the FPS market specifically. Therefore deliberately alienating them is incredibly stupid.

It states that 40% of gamers are women, it doesn't say what games they prefer. The link you quoted that you said "raises serious problems for the thesis that "women don't play FPS games"" listed several different types of gamers who happen to be girls, and essentially stated that immersives are one of them, and that immersives who prefer FPS games are a part of the immersives. The actual ratio of female gamers who are immersives, and the actual ratio of immersives that prefer FPS, is never stated.

Therumancer:I think people are overlooking another issue here. Sure, there is laziness, and people might try and make some kind of "boy's club" arguement, and then voice suspicians of the sexual preferances of the development team, however there is a big one:

Fear of socio-political backlash.

Back when City Of Heroes launched City Of Villains and it's "Mastermind" class, there were questions about why there were no female minions. The reason for this as I remember it was started as being the "potential for abuse".

Look at all the videos people make on the internet, all kinds of crude garbage. You start throwing female models out there and inevitably your going to see all kinds of misogynistic stuff being produced, especially when there is a lot of potential to put guns between a girl's legs, or walk around with your pets in tow and bake them in fire, or make a character who sits around "pimping his hoes" to get attention. I'm sure if you think you can come up with things you've already seen along these lines.

The thing is, we're not talking about NPCs under the control of the player character here; we're talking about the player characters themselves. In most games, no one tends to care if a female player character gets hit during a fight: There are no sociopolitical issues, because she can usually hit right back.

And why is the omission of female characters considered any sort of a solution, when the perpetrators of said "garbage" could instead simply be reprimanded?

Soylent Dave:Only if you take the approach that female models, characters NPCs etc. are 'extra' things that have to be added to a game - rather than things that should be included in a game from the start.

Which seems to be a disappointingly common view.

EvilPicnic:Also: the argument that girls don't want to play the game because they won't enjoy it as much as guys do, therefore we should not cater for them is a self-fulfilling prophecy. We need to break the mold a little, people. If games want to become a true mass-medium they need to appeal to more than 53.5% of the population.

Thank you. I personally think that the industry needs a good kick in the teeth in that regard. Preferably, in the form of more artists like the creator of those TF3 female mods.

BobDobolina:So, basically, women are an increasingly important part of the video games market generally and very likely a coming force in the FPS market specifically. Therefore deliberately alienating them is incredibly stupid.

Additionally, as I've pointed out before? It could be less that women aren't interested in shooters (an all-too-common claim) than that being female carries something of a stigma (to put it politely) among the shooter crowd. And while this attitude isn't overtly condoned, it is met (for the most part, at least) with apathy.

RelexCryo:It states that 40% of gamers are women, it doesn't say what games they prefer.

Because there is no absolute answer to that, it being dependent on what kind of games are actually available. If the business model being defended here is "Let's assume the 40% of women gamers are irrelevant to us and thereby relegate the FPS, for years the Cadillac of gaming, to competing for at best 60% of a rapidly-changing market," that's likewise profoundly, deeply and contempibly stupid.

RelexCryo:It states that 40% of gamers are women, it doesn't say what games they prefer.

Because there is no absolute answer to that, it being dependent on what kind of games are actually available. If the business model being defended here is "Let's assume the 40% of women gamers are irrelevant to us and thereby relegate the FPS, for years the Cadillac of gaming, to competing for at best 60% of a rapidly-changing market," that's likewise profoundly, deeply and contempibly stupid.

"How could game designers attract more female players? It's a question of what you put in games that deliberately excludes players. Am I making my game about do you want to take over the universe and kick someone's ass? Then I'm probably pushing them [women] away. I know companies want to attract the female player more. I see them actively hiring consultants to explore the female market. That's exciting. It shows that they're really taking this market very seriously."